41–50 of 176 posts
A solar powered mass-driver could sling a steady stream of pellets from Earth orbit into Solar non-orbit using existing technology.
That being said, burying it deep near the the start of a plate subduction zone makes at least as much sense.
This is all assuming that we don't have a space elevator. tldr; it costs a lot of money to launch mass into space. Sending 1 pound of water into space costs $50,000. This is more than the price of gold on earth. A space elevator changes the economics dramatically.
It draws some doubt that the author lists accelerations in units of km/sec, not km/sec^2.
Even if it were actually difficult to get to the sun, there are other options that are nearly as effective. Jupiter would be just as good of a dump or we could just launch on an extra solar trajectory. Hell, we could just put it on a large, non-equatorial orbit around the Earth and it would be effectively gone with the added benefit of being able to recover it should we find a reason to. Space is a big enough place t…
Ehhh, orbit's not a great idea, especially lower-earth orbit. There's already enough space junk in our orbit right now that we're running the risk of an orbital chain-reaction. The chain reaction could take out most of our satellites. I'm sure radioactive waste in our upper atmosphere wouldn't be a good thing, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
This is all assuming that we don't have a space elevator. tldr; it costs a lot of money to launch mass into space. Sending 1 pound of water into space costs $50,000. This is more than the price of gold on earth. A space elevator changes the economics dramatically.
Is there any way to use drag to decay the orbit? We don't have to reach the sun quickly . The solar wind is blowing past, is it possible to "sail" against that at an angle and - over time - dump orbital velocity and so end up in the sun?
From my understanding, solar wind can only push the payload further away from the sun and there is no noticeable drag in space or the earth wouldn't orbit for very long. You are probably thinking that you can sail upwind on a sail boat but it isn't the same in space. The boat's keel [1] and general shape keep it going straight which is necessary to sail upwind. That doesn't work in space. Another factor is that a sai…
I always thought the biggest reason was that if a rocket carrying nuclear waste exploded in our atmosphere, it would be catastrophic. It's a lot less risky to just bury it underground and pray it never leaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ehhh, orbit's not a great idea, especially lower-earth orbit. There's already enough space junk in our orbit right now that we're running the risk of an orbital chain-reaction. The chain reaction could take out most of our satellites. I'm sure radioactive waste in our upper atmosphere wouldn't be a good thing, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
You are vastly underestimating the space of possible orbits and vastly overestimating the size of debris and satellites.
I always thought the biggest reason was that if a rocket carrying nuclear waste exploded in our atmosphere, it would be catastrophic. It's a lot less risky to just bury it underground and pray it never leaks.
Or bury the nuclear waste in oceanic trenches. It is out of the way and future generations won't stumble upon it when humans forget where they buried all this stuff.